Wedge issues are flowing thick and fast.

The Howard Government may expand its controversial involvement in the "son of Star Wars" missile defence program to build a missile shield to protect Australian cities.

The move would dramatically increase the multibillion-dollar cost of Australian involvement and is likely to be used to campaign against Labor, which opposes the missile shield.

This would have to be one of the more stupid defence proposals put to the Australian public. Isn't today's threat terrorism? Fat lot of use a few billion dollars worth of missile shield will be against someone planting a bomb on a train.

Speaking to a defence and industry conference, he [Defence Minister Robert Hill] warned that ballistic missile systems "are now within reach of a number of erratic dictatorships".

Yes, and we know why they want them, too. Any 'erratic dictatorship' worth its salt would have noticed that the US is very reluctant to take military action against North Korea, who has a couple of missiles, compared to Iraq, which had none. Yet another unfortunate consequence of the Iraq misadventure.

Desperate for another wedge issue, John Howard is now proposing to link funding for schools with their willingness to errect (and I assume, use) a flagpole.

Flag waving ceremonies have gained populartity over the past 20 years or so. Baby boomers let the custom lapse after having nationalism rammed down their throughts during the Vietnam years. The younger generations seem to be more in tune with this sort of thing. I suppose it goes with the growing popularity of Anzac day observance.

As a member of the boomer generation, I have no desire to see flag cerimonies come back. I've always thought one of the nice things about Australia is its low key nationalism. Of course, this is anathema to the conservative view of the world. Strange really, as they accuse the left of social engineering.

I have no objection to schools using a flagpole if that's what their community wants, but surely it should be up to them, not as a condition of getting the money from a ratbag, conservative government.

Labor is being sensible by not reacting to this sort of issue. It will all be sorted, one way or the other, after the election.

Election yabber is increasing in the media and blog world. John Howard must be losing sleep as he is squeezed between the rock of unfavourable polls and the hard place of whether to run before or after the US presidential election.

I suspect that he won't risk going to the polls without Dubya. So it will be earlier rather than later.

Despite the polls, I don't think it's a foregone win for the Labor party. History has shown how the Liberal / National parties (the coalition) can hold power by manipulating the fears and prejudices of the electorate.

Labor was in opposition beween for 23 years between 1949 and 1972. In the 1950s, they were damaged by a factional split that resulted in the formation of the (now defunct) Democratic Labor Party.

In the 1961 election, Labor went within a few votes of winning government, but after that their electoral fortunes declined to the point where the coalition won the 1966 election by a landslide. The prime cause of the 1966 defeat was Labor's oppostion to the Vietnam War and Australia's participation in it. The coalition skillfully marginalised the ALP by talking up the population's fear of communism.

By the end of the 60s, the popularity of the Vietnam war and Australia's involvement in it decreased. Labor just lost the 1969 election, and won the 1972 election.

Howard would be well aware of the tactics his hero, Menzies, used to keep Labor at bay throughout this period.

Latham's declaration regarding bringing the troops home by Christmas is the biggest impediment his party has to regaining office after the coming election. The 'enemy' has changed but the method will be the same. The conservatives will talk up the threat of terrorism. A large portion of the electorate won't realise that Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden and Al Queda. The oft quoted call that Australians don't 'quit' will strike a chord.

I suspect that Labor will be forced to back down, perhaps promising to leave a small group of troops behind in Iraq to protect the embassy, or linking our involvement with the UN resolution regarding the formation of Iraqi provisional government.

No matter what other issues are raised during the election campaign, it is Australia's Iraqi involvement that will have to be managed carefully if Latham and Co want to sit on the Treasury Benches in the new parliament.

The Weekend Warrior has compared the right's outpouring over the death of Ronald Reagan with the veneration the left demonstrates in Australia over (the still living) Gough Whitlam.

Tim Dunlop is bemused by what he calls the veneration of Ronald Reagan by US conservatives. I am slightly surprised by this- it doesn't seem any worse than the "Whitlam Worship" that we see here by the Australian Left.

So, what did Whitlam do to deserve his deity status? Personal recollections follow.

Peter Garrett ends the speculation and joins the Labor party. Time to examine if drafting him is a good idea.

I have a problem with the concept of an individual joining a party one day, and being nominated for a (virtually) guaranteed parliamentary seat the next. The well publicised dissent within the local ALP branch was warranted and unsurprising. How disappointing and demoralising this must be for such a strong and committed ALP local organisation to be overridden by head office in this way.

Tim Dunlop has asked readers to comment on a list of questions regarding Australia's relationship to the US. It's a topic too good to ignor.

Just how willing is Australia as a contibutor to the Iraq rebuilding effort?

Well, a quick look at the Department of Defence web site shows there are 850 personnel in the Middle East. A rough breakdown is:

175 on a naval frigate;
150 servicing two transport aircraft (not in Iraq);
160 servicing two Orion surveylance aircraft (not in Iraq);
An undisclosed number at the Joint Taskfore Headquarters.

Those actually in Iraq consist of:

65 air traffic controllers at Baghdad airport;
90 security personnel to guard the embassy and protect Australian interests;
15 analysts looking for non existant WMDs;
12 RAN sailors training Iraqi sailors;
53 army training personel.
90 logistics and communications personel.
Various odds and sods at Coalition Headquarters.

The only essential people are the 90 security personel. The rest could go tomorrow without making one bit of difference to the situation. The US has about 150,000 troops in Iraq.

This handful is what all the argument is about.

Today, the US President interfered with Australian internal politics.

The Prime Minister was with him during a visit to the US.

The president voiced disapproval at the ALP's stated policy of pulling Australian troops out of Iraq by Christmas.

In my view, this is totally unacceptable. The US has no right to meddle in Australian domestic politics.

We've had enough of this sort of thing from the US Ambassador to Australia.

Imagine the uproar if an Australian Prime Minister meddled in US politics?

John, tell your mate George to butt out! (I won't be holding my breath!)

In the mail today, Liberal Party election propaganda disguised as government information, paid for by you and me.

In it, a personal letter from Johnny about the Medicare changes, featuring the new 'safety net', and changes to bulk billing.

Funny, I thought that Medicare itself was the safety net.

I expect this lot is the beginning of a flood of government junk mail.

Mark Latham would do well to promise to control this type of thing, but then, they do it too when in power. Nothing we can do about it. Fodder for the recycle bin.

There must be an election coming on. Where do I get this insightfulness you ask? Well, I can just feel it in me bones.

Take two events recently reported.......